Coleman v. CoxCom, LLC

Filing 8

ORDER denying 6 Motion for TRO. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 3/17/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COXCOMM, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
DEBORAH L. COLEMAN,

C.A. No. 16-060 S

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before

the

Court

is

Restraining Order (“TRO”).
(“Cox”) filed an Objection.

Plaintiff’s
(ECF No. 6.)

Motion

for

Temporary

Defendant CoxComm, LLC

(ECF No. 7.)

For the reasons that

follow, Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO states that “Cox fails to provide
[a] landline so that I may use Lifeline medically approved service.
Please, I ask that my service (land and wifi) be restored at no
cost to me and that service is provided, and they supply to me the
device(s) necessary to have full access.”
ECF No. 6.)
I

request

(Pl.’s Mot. for TRO 1,

Plaintiff adds that “they [Cox] treat me poorly and
service

disability.”

and

device

to

mitigate

the

effects

of

my

(Id.)

In reviewing a motion for TRO, a court weighs the following
four factors:

(1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the
potential for irreparable harm [to the movant] if the
injunction is denied; (3) the balance of relevant
impositions, i.e., the hardship to the nonmovant if
enjoined as contrasted with the hardship to the movant
if no injunction issues; and (4) the effect (if any) of
the court’s ruling on the public interest.
Rudd v. Providence Police Dep’t, No. CA 07-014S, 2007 WL 1219677,
at *1 (D.R.I. Apr. 6, 2007) (quoting Wine & Spirits Retailers, Inc.
v. Rhode Island, 418 F.3d 36, 46 (1st Cir. 2005)).

“Of the four

factors, the likelihood of success on the merits is the most
important” because “‘if the moving party cannot demonstrate that
he is likely to succeed in his quest, the remaining factors become
matters

of

idle

curiosity.’”

Id.

(quoting

Wine

&

Spirits

Retailers, 418 F.3d at 46).
Plaintiff cites the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.
§ 255 in support of her argument (Pl.’s Mot. for TRO 1, ECF No.
6); however, as Cox notes, “neither that section nor any other
statute or regulation requires a telecommunications provider to
give customers devices and free service.”
7.)

(Def.’s Obj. 3, ECF No.

Moreover, 47 U.S.C. § 255 does not provide for a private right

of action.

See id. § 255(f) (“Nothing in this section shall be

construed to authorize any private right of action to enforce any
requirement of this section or any regulation thereunder. The
Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any
complaint under this section.”).

Because Plaintiff’s claim is

without a legal basis, her Motion for TRO must be denied.
2

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO is
hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: March 17, 2016

3